![]() The FBI sought documents related to that payment and other similar agreements with women. In April, the FBI raided Cohen's home, office, and hotel room.Īt the center of Cohen's troubles is a $130,000 hush-money payment he facilitated weeks before the 2016 presidential election to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, to keep her quiet about her allegation of a 2006 affair with Trump. US District Judge Kimba Wood had imposed a Friday deadline for Cohen's team to finish its review of roughly 2.4 million documents it had yet to sift through.Ĭohen is the focus of an investigation in the Southern District of New York into whether he violated campaign-finance laws or committed bank fraud, wire fraud, illegal lobbying, or other crimes. Prosecutors from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said in the filing that they conferred with Cohen's lawyers and that the parties jointly proposed a June 25 deadline for Cohen's team to review the newly produced documents for privilege designations. The government is still unable to obtain data from the second BlackBerry. The information came from apps like WhatsApp and Signal.įinally, prosecutors said they produced to Cohen the information from one of two BlackBerrys they previously could not get into. Prosecutors also said the FBI had obtained more than 700 pages' worth of encrypted messages and call logs from Cohen's phones. It often indicates a user profile.įederal prosecutors said in a Friday court filing that they had pieced together 16 pages' worth of content from President Donald Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen's paper shredder, which was obtained in the FBI's April raids of Cohen's home, office, and hotel room. Granted in part, denied in part, and dismissed as moot in part.Account icon An icon in the shape of a person's head and shoulders. Although the City provided responsive records to the Requester in response to a prior RTKL request, such action did not relieve the City from providing those records in response to the instant Request. The City proved that part of the Request was not sufficiently specific under Section 703. 17-20075-04 do not exist within the possession, custody or control of the City. The City proved that related to Contract No. 17-20075-02 and 17-20075-03 contain exempt personal identification information and information protected by the state Constitutional right to privacy. The City proved that responsive records records related to Contract Nos. The City provided access to records related toĬontract Number 17-20075 and Contract Number 17-20075-01on appeal. The Request sought City DBHIDS' Mental Health Base Unitary Contract and related documents. ![]() City of Philadelphia Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability Services Granted in part, denied in part, dismissed as moot in part.Ĭarmencita Maria Pedro v. Agency proved that a record consists of correspondence between a person and a member of the General Assembly. Agency did not records are exempt social services records. Agency proved that some records are exempt procurement materials. Agency proved that some records reflect internal, predecisional deliberations. Agency proved that records contain personal identification information. ![]() Agency did not prove records are exempt medical records. Agency proved that some records are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine. A portion of the Request was sufficiently specific under Section 703. Agency proved that certain records do not exist within the possession, custody or control of the agency. Request sought records related to an agency request for applications. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Pennsylvania Health and Wellness Pennsylvania Health and Wellness and Pennsyvania Health and Wellness v. Granted in part, denied in part and dismissed as moot in part. The agency proved that certain records responsive to Item 7 of the Request reflect internal predecisionial deliberations. To the extent that the information responsive to Item 3 of the Request is not part of a performance review, the agency must provide that record to the Requester. Certain portions of the appeal were withdrawn. The redacted records provided to the Requester during the appeal in response to Item 7 of the Request contained exempt personal identification information. During the appeal, the agency provided records responsive to Items 8, 13, and part of Item 7. The agency proved that records responsive to Items 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and part of Item 3, do not exist within the agency's possession custody or control. Request sought information pertaining to certain employees, as well as information related to the hiring process for an agency job position.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |